“College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms,” said the Republican vice-presidential nominee, “staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can…get going with life.”

That's right kids, tear down that fading poster! Replace it with one of me, pumping iron with my hat backwards. You kids like that stuff, right?

"If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain."
Plus, the liberal brainwashing that takes place in our schools has pretty much worn off when you reach a certain age and experience.

"Although Bob Jones University is primarily a teaching institution, the members of the science faculty have a long tradition of speaking, writing and doing research related to defending the Bible’s account of creation."

TS2912, How's that pizza delivery job working out for you? And still living with yo mama at age 29...that's got to suck dude.
Listen to me TS...I was a wimpy leftest democrat when I was your age...but trust me dude...you will wake up one day. The brainwashing that your government employee liberal professors gave you...it will pass.

If being against religious colleges (like the Bob Jones university where the science of Creationism trumps the baseless liberal lie of Evolution) makes me a 'left wing nut', then I AM GUILTY AS CHARGED.
(It is indeed terrifying to see how much to the right you so-called centrists are)

I disagree-young ppl default to being democrats b/c we don't teach our youth to a) take responsibility for your actions; b) think for themselves (i.e. don't let the talking heads do it for you); and c)how to manage your money, prepare for the future, and in general, be responsible, productive citizens, fathers, mothers, sons, et al. As such, young ppl are weak of mind and spine, and quick to point the blame at someone else for THEIR problems, and it's the Dems who say to them "It's ok, we know it's someone else's fault. He's your foodstamps, sect 8, medicaid and welfare check. You keep voting for us, and we will make sure you never have to worry those things again." Of course, they don't tell the youth that, if they accept that hand out, they are trapped in a system which all but guarantees them to NEVER succeed, at ANYTHING.

When I was 21, I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. (same thing Ann Romney has) This is an autoimmune disorder that, without continuous and expensive treatment, leads to paralysis and blindness.

Now here are the poor lifestyle choices which lead me to have this.

1) I am of Northern European descent. Increased my risk a lot. I should have chosen to be Southeast Asian. That's obviously my fault.

2) I have a relative who has it as well. Increased my risk a lot.

3) I lived in a temperate zone before the age of 15. If I had been a responsible 5 year old, I would have lobbied my parents to move to Miami and thus reduce my risk.

4) I did make one good decision in that I was a man. It's 3 times more prevalent in women, but obviously one good decision doesn't undo the three previous bad ones that I made.

So at age 22, I got too old for parental insurance and facing a medical bill of 1200$ a month for the rest of my life. (If I had been thinking ahead, I would have taken responsibility for it by marrying someone really rich. see Mrs. Romney)

Now as you might notice, no insurance company wants to take me on. I'm a guaranteed loss. Going around asking for insurance with a faulty body is no different than going around and asking for insurance for a faulty car or an unsafe building. I could keep my insurance going for a year (this is the continuous coverage for preexisting conditions that exists and existed before ObamaCare) but it was set to run out. The worst part was I had a bio degree. It was a bright future, but one that required me to be a poor graduate student/intern for a few years before I could work at a real lab. But doing that meant forgoing insurance.

So I did the only thing I could do after graduation. I left the country, traveled to Taiwan, got a job, and got coverage from their National Health insurance. (It's Medicare for everyone, costs 8% of GDP and the premiums are 20$ vs. 386$ in the states.)

So imagine how happy I was when Obamacare passed and I could go back on parental insurance and wouldn't be denied for a pre existing condition and therefore come back to the country of my birth. In the meantime, I'm getting my Master's degree and I will hopefully return to the states as a healthy person with the credentials to get a job that provides health insurance and become a productive tax paying member of society.

Now, you might argue that the "responsible" thing to do would be to not seek medicine I can't pay for and get paralyzed before my 30th birthday.

But here's why that's worse for you anyway.

As a paralyzed person, I wouldn't be able to work. (MS also causes cognitive problems when untreated.) So I'd be in hospice care on SS Disability and costing the public a lot of money with no possibility of paying it back.

Or...

I could get coverage which I can't initially afford but means that there's at least a possibility of becoming a productive citizen.

Well, actually there is one option which would be totally responsible and would make sure that my disease didn't draw away resources that I haven't paid for.

That's suicide. Which is actually the go to policy for a lot of young MS patients. The suicide rate among young men with MS is very high, about 3 times higher than it is for cancer patients, for example. This option has the benefit of not putting me on social security disability, not putting me on any country's insurance, not consuming thousands of dollars in medicine which I can't afford.

It's the responsible option.

Doing otherwise would be equivalent to stealing as I'm getting medicine or disabled care that ultimately someone else has to pay for.

Taiwan, by giving me insurance, is actually letting me succeed. I worked for two years, saved my money, applied for a scholarship and am now getting a Masters. None of which would have happened, if I'd stayed in the states without insurance before Obamacare.

2 points: First, you use an unfair example b/c MS is genetic. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't still make good responsible decisions relative to your health.
2nd: Using another nation, w/"national" health care, which doesn't have the same proportionate age demographics; GDP per person %; a much smaller population and geographic area; and self destructive social habits on the scale (40-70% of our population either abuses drugs or alcohol, spends themselves into uncontrollable debt, or is morbidly obese) that we do, isn't a fair comparison. In no way did i ever agree w/the whole turning down of ppl for health coverage b/c of a 'preexisting condition', but that doesn't mean i believe that the Federal Gov't should have wrote that GOOD legislation into a POS bill like the AHCA-which is clearly designed to bankrupt every state in the union, thereby guaranteeing a future dictatorship via broad socialism in our country.
Under the idea you support (assuming that is the AHCA), what you completely miss is that once you reach the age of retirement, and are no longer a 'productive citizen', your medical care will be rationed b/c you are too expensive to 'maintain' up to the 'standards of a fully productive citizen'. In other words, you will be disregarded, and left to slowly die due to your disease and age. Another aspect which you can't see yet b/c of your age (based on your bio up there, i'm assuming you're under 30) is that your Masters degree will be lucky to gain you $60k a year-on average throughout your life-BECAUSE OF the AHCA. You see, they don't want to say this truism: to keep the country from going completely bankrupt under this law, they will have to impose a new tax w/in those states which decide to "opt in" to the ACHA. That tax is estimated anywhere from 8-15% depending on which biased, or unbiased, economic report you read. If you use Canada as a model, they pay something like 18% for their national health care, and it's only been in the last decade that their system actually has enough MRI units to keep older patients off the former 8 month to 1 year waiting lists (its now about 4 months) before they could find out if they had cancer. Now, Canada only has about the same population as where i live now-Cali. and 90% of that population lives on less than 15% of the countries total land mass, therefore keeping costs down. Canada, also doesn't have many of the social issues relative to drug abuse/addition (esp alcohol), as well as the urban, inner city lifestyle, which is both violent and unhealthy in eating habits (mostly due to a lack of education)...
In free market capitalistic societies, the market place is supposed to dictate such things like whether or not you could get affordable health care. But over regulation of the industry-on both the insurance and provider side-has driven up costs and limited competition, driving up costs further. Of course, being on the front lines, so to speak, of the health insurance debate in our country, and being 8k miles removed of it, would cause you to miss many of these very important facts, but that doesn't excuse you from not trying to find out all sides of the issues.

(First thing, never go back and edit a comment on the Economist boards because it destroys all of the formatting and makes it hard to read)

My point. The marketplace would not give me affordable healthcare as I know my price (1200 then 3000 now) and any company which charged me less than 3001 dollars would lose money.

The insurance companies actually love Medicare and Medicaid because they take the people that incur losses when insured (the old and the poor) and shift them onto the public purse while allowing the insurance companies to pocket the gains from insuring the remaining younger wealthier people. Add in the fact that private insurers take 15% of premiums for non health related purposes vs. 2% here or 3% in Medicare and I don't see why they should be involved.

Without government compulsion, there is no reason for any for profit company to provide me with healthcare after I know I'm sick. It's like betting on blackjack hand that's already busted. Can you please explain to me a profit based rationale for them to do so in the absence of government compulsion?

As for Taiwan, I've gotten two MRI's here, both on a week's notice. I don't know how Taiwan avoided having long waiting lists like Canada but they don't.

I disagree w/little of what you say, but you concluded w/a question to which i do have an answer too (just good luck seeing it ever seeing it justified this way by a politician-it's a rather cold, but logical view in many ways).
The approach is a cost evaluation one. Every "capable of working" person in the country, illnesses such as cancer and aides aside under proper safety precautions, has a value to the economy which exceeds the 'market rate' for the position they fill w/in that company. That individual value reflects a broad range of impacts each of us, individually, has on goods and services. For example, the company you work for could be heavily invested in the pharms which produce your meds. It would make sense for them to 'insure' you, and as many like you who would be using their meds, so long as the return is greater than the shared health costs of each of us (by shared, i mean employer-employee. It is my opinion that the employer/employee relationship, in ALL cases, goes both ways. But in the case of self employment, you do so willingly taking on all of your health care costs). Not only from the investment standpoint, but they would get a dedicated, potentially life long employee out of it, which is a rare and highly desired commodity today w/in a lot of business sectors (this would occur more often if they did these things for this honorable reason, but that's harder to find than Obama's college records lol).
As for Taiwan, that could be a cultural thing: if they lead healthier lives due to a lack of chemicals w/in the foods they eat, and have less exposure to known pollutants and CO2 emissions, that sort of culture and society could account for the lack of demand for something like an MRI...
Lastly, i dont edit post posting. If i miss an error, my bad lol :).

It is unfortunate you have to suffer with MS, but what makes your suffering greater than other peoples suffering. Would someone suffering from PTSD not deserve a lifetime of disability payments and treatment. Shouldn't everyone get everything they feel they deserve and want? Its only fair that right?
-
Should we redistribute resources solely based on your suffering? who determines whos suffering is greater?
-
Unfortunately my liberal friend what you fail to realize is we do not live in a Utopia world of unlimited resources, not everyone can have what they want no matter how unfair that seems (but maybe you never learned that from your parents, that you can't always get what you want, I know the entitlement generation being constantly coddled find that hard to understand)

I find liberals resort to childish remarks instead of trying to use reason or discuss anything.
-
Of course thats the only resort they have since non of the positions make sense.
-
I'll play along
-
Dear New Conservative and your TS2912 liberal friend
-
Even though the US is in 16 Trillion of debt, and we have constant request from people who feel they are entitled to everything from houses, education, cars and paying your utility bills, The great and all powerful Government will provide you with everything you desire, even if it means the US collapses, because your entitled to it! Remember only 3 wishes though
-
Just worship us, because we are all powerful, and all knowing.
-
Sincerely
-
Your Democratic President and Congress.

"I find liberals resort to childish remarks instead of trying to use reason or discuss anything."

I find this hilarious coming from a conservative who agrees with (GOP candidate) Mourdock's comments on rape.

And from a conservative who wants to add 5 trillion in debt with tax cuts for the rich and add another 2 trillion to our war machine.

All of which is apparently to incentivize our 'job creators' (the guys who are failing to create jobs despite currently paying the lowest tax rates in history) and to protect us from America's 'greatest threat ever'... the Iranians.

Please do not try and tell us young people how to be productive citizens etc after telling us we need to think for ourselves. If you can't believe in a socialist utopia like most people can, I guess voting republican is the option for you. But please let us people with a little hope for human integrity and social grace cling on to the idea that with more democrats in power socially aware and necessary policies will actually get implemented, instead of being blocked by conservatives, leading to the lack of change everyone is complaining about.

You need to get your facts right. Actually in Canada, health care makes up 10% of their GDP, in the US its 16%. Yes 90% of its population lives on 15% of its land mass, but that is still 1/4 as densely population as California. Its a massive country even 15% is very large. It still takes 3-4 days driving straight through the night to get from Montreal to Vancouver.

In general, things in Canada are more expensive (food, fuel) than in the US, because its sparely populated. They don't have economies of scale etc. So why is health care cheaper in Canada? Some people are argue about R+D driving cost, the US does all the research. But seriously, US in all sectors spends 2.5% of its GDP on R&D, Canada

Comparing California with Canada is silly. A better comparison would be to compare life expectancy of border states in the US with neighboring Canadian provinces, where the demographics, climate are similar.

If you look at it, there is little difference between neighboring US border states and Canadian provinces in terms of life expectancy. Some Canadian provinces are more violent than bordering US states (ie Manitoba vs Wisconsin / Minnesota). The homicide rate in Manitoba is 4 / 100000 compared to 2.5 / 100000 in Wisconsin. Manitoba has a large native population, 15% of the population are natives, with alot of serious drug issues. Sniffing glue/gasoline is not going to help. Life expectancy in Manitoba is about the same as Wisconsin.

Yet health care cost are higher in those states vs their neighboring Canadian provinces, even ones that are more densely population. Why?

The health care schemes in the Western world is not a "liberal" concept, the first one was founded by Bismarck over a hundred years ago. Canada is a hybrid system, it has elements of Britain's NHS and Bismarckian system found in the Germany/Japan/Switzerland/Singapore etc. Taiwan's model is based on Canada's.

The US system is a hodge podge of systems. You have those with no insurance (ie like nearly all third world countries) 15% of the population, they pay out of pocket. Those with employer sponsored health care insurance (Bismarckian system), its regulated by the state, but private insurers provide the insurance. Than you have those on Medicare, which is like Canada's single payer system.

The US system is nightmare, its better just abolishing the whole employer funded system, and go with single payer and get people to pay out of pocket like they do in Mexico. The life expectancy in Mexico is 1.5 years lower than the US and they spend only 7% of their GDP on health care. If you compared the life expectancy in New Mexico with Mexico, there is just about a year's difference. Mexicans are overweight, have extremely high murder rate.

I never said that my suffering was greater than anyone else's. The PTSD example is slightly different since that's an acquired psychological condition that can be treated and in many cases people recover. MS is an autoimmune disorder.

I was talking about how does a private healthcare system deal with the market failure of certain people having faulty bodies. Private insurance works great for cars or buildings, because those are things where, if the item is faulty, the person can get rid of it and buy another one.

The problem with doing it for health is that there are some people like myself who have "faulty bodies." We can't get another one.

At the moment, before 2014, the law is set up so that the gains from insuring the comparatively young and wealthy goes to the private sector, while the cost of caring for the old, poor, or permanently disabled is shouldered by the public.

That's privatizing the gains of insurance and socializing the losses. Mandating that private insurers have to cover people like me means that the public is paying less. I thought you'd be down with that.

Also, in a world of finite resources, as you so eloquently put it, why do we have a system that consume 18% of the largest GDP in the world, when other 16 other countries (socialist strongholds like Israel and Taiwan among them) have better health outcomes for much cheaper with universal single payer insurance?

If you really cared about efficiency, you'd be clamoring to change the system to something cheaper.

Our private insurers haven't brought US costs down in the past 4 decades, maybe it's time we copy any one of 18 other nations that care for their people at far cheaper prices.

"Almost as many under-30s describe themselves as conservative (33%) as liberal (37%). Most voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the first George Bush in 1988."

No one under 30 today could have possibly voted for either Reagan or GHWB. One must be at least 18 to vote: for someone who turned 30 in 2012, the first election they were able to vote was Bush/Gore in 2000.

Well, the youth are idiots to lose faith in voting. One has only to look at a comparison of money spent by the government and the amount that different ages vote to understand voting=money. Right now government is tilted towards taking money from the unborn and giving it to the aged. This is the result of the elderly voting in larger numbers than anyone else. They should get their heads not just out of their childhood bedrooms but out of their you know whats.